mind_controlfandomcom_en-20200214-history
Enhanced interrogation techniques
Enhanced interrogation techniques, rough interrogation, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods, and alternative set of procedures are terms adopted by the George W. Bush administration to describe methods considered by many to be torture used by the US military intellegence and the CIA to extract information from captives as part of the War on Terror."Torture can never, ever be accepted" by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of EuropeUK Commons report *UK Commons report casts doubt on US denial of torture techniques by Andrew Gilmore, JURIST, July 20, 2008 *UK Parliament report: The U.S. tortures and cannot be trusted when it denies it by Jack Balkin, Balkinization, July 20, 2008 *UK 'must check' US torture denial, BBC News, 19 July 2008 Torture and America's Crisis of Faith - The Senate's retreat from its initial demand that now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey denounce waterboarding is detrimental to the country's moral fabric. For the first time, torture bears an imprimatur of democratic approval by Jonathan Hafetz, The American Prospect, November 28 2007 White House nears completion of new torture guidelines Critics say administration's endorsement of 'enhanced interrogation' is 'immoral,' draw comparisons to Nazi war crimes By Arthur Bright, The Christian Science Monitor, May 31 2007 The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture by Alfred W. McCoy Despite the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" the International Committee of the Red CrossRed Cross Report of C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives *Book Cites Secret Red Cross Report of C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives By SCOTT SHANE, Newb York Times, July 11, 2008 *New Book Reveals Existence of Secret Red Cross Torture Report By Kate Klonick, Talking Points Memo, July 11, 2008, the United Nations,UN Committee against Torture report *US 'must end secret detentions' BBC, May 19 2006 *U.N.: U.S. Should Close Gitmo Panel On Torture Also Says U.S. Should Avoid Using Secret Prisons CBS News, May 19 2006 the Commissioner for Human Rights, the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH),Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) report *Leave No Marks: 'Enhanced' Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality A Report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights, July 2007 *Those Who Authorize and Use CIA "Enhanced" Interrogation Tactics Risk Criminal Prosecution - Landmark Report: Techniques Previously Authorized for CIA Use — Not Ruled Out by President’s CIA Executive Order — Likely Violate U.S. Law by Physicians for Human Rights, August 2 2007 *PRESIDENT BUSH AND CONGRESS MUST FACE THE TRUTH by Physicians for Human RightsAmnesty International, USA: Slippery slopes and the politics of torture Amnesty International, November 9 2007 Elizabeth de la Vega,What Real DOJ Trial Attorneys Say About Torture By Elizabeth de la Vega, truthout, November 18 2007 and many other experts classify them to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective.So Mukasey Doesn't Know If Waterboarding Is Torture? Please by Joyce Appleby, History News Network, October 29 2007Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind “24.” by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, February 12 2007The Pentagon's IG Report Contradicts What the APA Has Said About the Involvement of Psychologists in Abusive Interrogations - A Q&A on Psychologists and Torture By Stephen Soldz (Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development & Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; University of Massachusetts, Boston), Steven Reisner (Senior Faculty and Supervisor, International Trauma Studies Program, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical School), and Brad Olson (Assistant Research Professor, at Northwestern University), Counterpunch, June 7 2007‘Fill The Jails’, Part II by Sean Gonsalves, CommonDreams, May 26 2007Advisers Fault Harsh Methods In Interrogation By SCOTT SHANE AND MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, May 30 2007 For its use on Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, the government of Canada added the U.S. to a list of countries that employ interrogation methods that amount to torture.US on list of states where prisoners risk torture *Canada document includes US on list of states where prisoners risk torture Brett Murphy, JURIST, January 17, 2008 Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list: CTV, CTV.ca, January 17, 2008 Although reactions by the administration and its supporters remain ambiguous, former US president Jimmy Carter is among those who publicly stated it is torture in an interview on October 10 2007, "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law."Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners in a CNN interview on 10 October 2007 Only a handful of CIA interrogators have had training in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques after U.S. President George W. Bush first authorized them in mid-March 2002. History Verschärfte Vernehmung Experts Marty Lederman, H. Candace Gorman, Arthur Bright, Scott Horton and Nat Hentoff have reported that blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic Andrew Sullivan claimed that "enhanced interrogation" bears remarkable resemblance to the techniques the Gestapo called "Verschärfte Vernehmung," for which some of them faced prosecution in Norway after World War II and were "found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death."Torture By Another Name - The origins of “enhanced interrogation techniques” can be traced to the German Gestapo by Candace Gorman, In These Times, June 14 2007Coming to a Theater Near You: Five Years in Guantánamo by Lou Dubose, Washington Spectator, July 1 2007Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led by Andrew Sullivan, The Sunday Times, October 7 2007"Verschärfte Vernehmung" by Andrew Sullivan, May 29 2007How The Nazis Defended "Enhanced Interrogation" Andrew Sullivan, June 14 2007Defending Enhanced Interrogation Techniques by Scott Horton, Harper'sOne of Those Rare Instances in Which the Nazi Analogy is Unavoidable Marty Lederman, Balkinization, May 29 2007 The Gestapo Inheritance 'We do not torture': Groans from the CIA's black sites beg to differ Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, October 16, 2007 Besides the similarity of the practices, the German term "verschärfte Vernehmung" itself literally translates as "enhanced interrogation". These techniques included the simplest rations, a hard bed, a dark cell, deprivation of sleep, exhaustion exercises, and blows with a stick. A 1948 Norwegian court caseCASE No. 12 - Trial of Kriminalsekretär RICHARD WILHELM HERMANN BRUNS and two others BY THE EIDSIVATING LAGMANNSRETT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY, 20TH MARCH AND 3RD JULY, 1946 - Torturing as a War Crime. The Legal Status of the Norwegian Underground Military Organisation. The Defences of Legitimate Reprisals, Superior Orders and Duress described the use of hypothermia identical to the reports from Guantanamo Bay. Sullivan and Gorman contend that the defence used by the Nazis for applying the techniques "is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration." Most notably the concept of unlawful enemy combatant is invoked avant la lettre to justify its implementation on "insurgent prisoners out of uniform", and notes the identical logic propagated by John Yoo today. The so called "ticking time bomb scenario", as rationale for allowing torture, had its precursor in the Gestapo's "Third degree" measures. According to The Christian Science Monitor: But while the Nazis' interrogative methods were found to be torture, The New York Times writes that the Allies' methods at the time were far more effective and far less abusive than those the United States uses now. SERE program According to Human Rights First: Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorised for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003.Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Abed Hamed Mowhoush, Human Rights First And Salon stated: A March 22 2005, sworn statement by the former chief of the Interrogation Control Element at Guantánamo said instructors from SERE also taught their methods to interrogators of the prisoners in Cuba.Torture teachers - An Army document proves that Guantánamo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture By Mark Benjamin, Salon, June 29 2006 While Jane Mayer reported for The New Yorker: According to the sere affiliate and two other sources familiar with the program, after September 11th several psychologists versed in sere techniques began advising interrogators at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. Some of these psychologists essentially “tried to reverse-engineer” the sere program, as the affiliate put it. “They took good knowledge and used it in a bad way,” another of the sources said. Interrogators and bsct members at Guantánamo adopted coercive techniques similar to those employed in the sere program.The Experiment - The military trains people to withstand interrogation. Are those methods being misused at Guantánamo? by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, July 11, 2005 and continues to report: many of the interrogation methods used in sere training seem to have been applied at Guantánamo. In addition, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner and Brad Olson also wrote an article describing how these techniques mimic what was taught in the SERE-program: "the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program that trains US Special Operations Forces, aviators and others at high risk of capture on the battlefield to evade capture and to resist 'breaking' under torture, particularly through giving false confessions or collaborating with their captors." Soldz et al., Salon, and Mayer cite the following examples: #Prolonged isolation, #Prolonged sleep deprivation, #Sensory deprivation, #Extremely painful "stress positions," #Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights), #Forced nakedness, #Sexual humiliation, #Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures), #Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia, #Exploitation of phobias, #Simulation of the experience of drowning and controlled drowning, i.e., waterboarding. The War on Terror Department of Defence In November 2006, the former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in charge of Abu Ghraib prison until early 2004, told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation. "The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques." She said that this was contrary to the Geneva Convention and quoted from the same "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". According to Karpinski, the handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished". According to the February 16, 2008 edition of The Economist, Rumsfeld also wrote in a 2002 memo; "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing (by prisoners) limited to four hours?" There have been no comments from either the Pentagon or U.S. Army spokespeople in Iraq on Karpinski's accusations.— "Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former US Army general" Reuters News Senior law enforcement agents with the Criminal Investigation Task Force told MSNBC.com in 2006 that they began to complain inside the Defense Department in 2002 that the interrogation tactics used in Guantanamo Bay detention camp by a separate team of military intelligence investigators were unproductive, not likely to produce reliable information, and probably illegal. Unable to get satisfaction from the Army commanders running the detainee camp, they took their concerns to David Brant, director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), who alerted Navy General Counsel Alberto J. Mora. General Counsel Mora and Navy Judge Advocate General Michael Lohr believed the detainee treatment to be unlawful, and campaigned among other top lawyers and officials in the Defense Department to investigate, and to provide clear standards prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics. In response, on January 15, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld suspended the approved interrogation tactics at Guantánamo until a new set of guidelines could be produced by a working group headed by General Counsel of the Air Force Mary Walker. The working group based its new guidelines on a legal memo from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel written by John Yoo and signed by Jay S. Bybee, which would later become widely known as the "Torture Memo". General Counsel Mora led a faction of the Working Group in arguing against these standards, and argued the issues with Yoo in person. The working group's final report, was signed and delivered to Guantánamo without the knowledge of Mora and the others who had opposed its content. Nonetheless, Mora has maintained that detainee treatment has been consistent with the law since the January 15 2003 suspension of previously approved interrogation tactics. On May 1, 2005, the New York Times reported on an ongoing high-level military investigation into accusations of detainee abuse at Guantánamo, conducted by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt of the Air Force, and dealing with: "accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who complained after witnessing detainees subjected to several forms of harsh treatment. The F.B.I. agents wrote in memorandums that were never meant to be disclosed publicly that they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners' genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours." On July 12, 2005, members of a military panel told the committee that they proposed disciplining prison commander Army Major General Geoffrey Miller over the interrogation of Mohamed al-Kahtani who was forced to wear a bra, dance with another man and threatened with dogs. The recommendation was overruled by General Bantz J. Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, who referred the matter to the Army's inspector general. CIA ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The article states that those involved included: Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.White House approved enhanced interrogation *Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation' - Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects, By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE, ABC News, April 9, 2008 *Say It Ain't So, Colin, Jack Balkin, Balkinization, April 9, 2008 *“History Will Not Judge This Kindly” by Scott Horton, No Comment, April 9 2008 In December 2007 C.I.A. director Michael V. Hayden stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the enhanced techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three."Lawmakers Back Limits on Interrogation Tactics By SCOTT SHANE, New York Times, December 7, 2007Lawyers for Detainee Refer In Filing to More CIA Tapes By Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, January 19, 2008 US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on BBC Radio 4 that since these methods are not intended to punish they do not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, barring "cruel and unusual punishment," and as such may not be unconstitutional.Scalia thinks is is not illegal *US judge steps in to torture row BBC, February 12, 2008 *Scalia says 'so-called torture' may not be unconstitutional JURIST, Mike Rosen-Molina, February 12, 2008 According to ABC News , former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include: #The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them. #Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear. #The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage. #Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours. #The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius). #Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. Legal opinions , author of the "Torture memos."]] Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memorandaThe Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terrorismThe Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, Executive Authority, DOJ and OLC Marty Lederman, Balkinization, July 08, 2007 were written, by John Yoo, analysing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos,"Yoo memos referred to as "torture memos" *The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom by Christopher Edley, Jr., The Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Chair and Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall, April 10, 2008 *The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, Executive Authority, DOJ and OLC Marty Lederman, Balkinization, July 08, 2007 *Bush Admits To Knowledge of Torture Authorization by Top Advisers by the ACLU *Yoo Two, by Scott Horton, No Comment, April 3, 2008 *John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat? by Glenn Greenwald, April 12, 2008Suggested origin of legal justifications *Thinking out loud about John Yoo (and about Carl Schmitt) by Sandy Levinson, Balkinization, April 12, 2008 *The Bush Regime from Elections to Detentions: A Moral Economy of Carl Schmitt and Human Rights by Abraham, David, University of Miami - School of Law, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-20 May 2007 *Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics by Kutz, Christopher L., University of California, Berkeley - School of Law (Boalt Hall), UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 870602, December 2005 *The Return of Carl Schmitt Scott Horton, Balkinization, November 07, 2005 *Deconstructing John Yoo by Scott Horton, Harpers, January 23, 2008 *The will to undemocratic power By Philip S Golub, Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2006 *The Leo-conservatives by GERHARD SPÖRL, Der Spiegel, August 04, 2003 *The Leo-conservatives by GERHARD SPÖRL, Der Spiegel, August 04, 2003 advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution under the US War Crimes Act of 1996 for actions taken in the War on Terror.War crimes warning *Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19 2004 *Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28 2005 *US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes By Grant McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global Policy Forum, January 28 2003 In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.US definition of torture *Judge's anger at US torture by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17 2006 *Torture as National Policy By Dahr Jamail, Tomdispatch.com, March 9 2006 Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defence to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.Torture as policy? *Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy July 7 2004 *THE MEMO -How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, February 20 2006 *How the Pentagon Came to Adopt Criminal Abuse as Official Policy by Marty Lederman, February 20 2006 The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released on 24 July 2008. The interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds. "Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture," Jay Bybee, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo. The 18-page memo is heavily redacted, with 10 of its 18 pages completely blacked out and only a few paragraphs legible on the others. Another memo released on the same day advises that "the waterboard," does "not violate the Torture Statute." It also cites a number of warnings against torture, including statements by President Bush and a then-new Supreme Court ruling "which raises possible concerns about future U.S. judicial review of the interrogation Program." A third memo instructs interrogators to keep records of sessions in which "enhanced interrogation techniques" are used. The memo is signed by then-CIA director George Tenet and dated January 28, 2003. The memos were made public by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the three CIA-related documents under Freedom of Information Act requests.http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/cia.torture/index.html Unitary Executive Theory At the heart of policies in the War on Terror is the notion that during a time of war the President, in his duty as Commander-in-Chief, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by law -i.e. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, UN Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions- or Congress. Since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity -US and international law or even Congress- can be considered unconstitutional.Suggested interpretation of War Powers in the Bush administration *The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006 *The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006 *Guest Opinion by Roger A. White, Arizona Daily Star, January 22, 2006 *Bush on Trial for Crimes against Humanity By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 24, 2006 *How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006 *George Bush's rough justice - The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian, January 12, 2006 *Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11By John W. Dean, FindLaw,February 10, 2006 *Democracy's Battle Joined, Again By Robert Parry, December 22, 2005 *The End of 'Unalienable Rights' By Robert Parry, January 24, 2006 *No Checks, Many Imbalances By George F. Will, Washington Post, 16 February 2006 *How Close Are We to the End of Democracy? by Martin Garbus, Huffington Post, January 20, 2006 *Administration Paper Defends Spy Program Detailed Argument Cites War Powers By Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, January 20, 2006 *Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping By Peter Slevin, Washington Post, December 26, 2005. John Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse, and that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Convention "because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs".An interview with John Yoo: author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 These views on executive power, known as the unitary executive theory, are controversial since it appears to suggest that the President's war powers place him above any law.An interview with John Yoo: author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 A Wunnerful, Wunnerful Constitution, John Yoo Notwithstanding, After Downing Street, December 9 2005 The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001 (.pdf), Vanderbilt University Meek, mild and menacing, Salon (magazine), January 12 2006 Suggested origin of legal opinions Horton contends that John Yoo's analysis that the President was not bound by the Geneva Conventions was based upon work by Carl Schmitt. Examples of arguments used by Schmitt according to Horton: #Particularly on the Eastern Front, the conflict was a nonconventional sort of warfare being waged against a “barbaric” enemy which engaged in “terrorist” practices, and which itself did not observe the law of armed conflict. #Individual combatants who engaged in “terrorist” practices, or who fought in military formations engaged in such practices, were not entitled to protections under international humanitarian law, and the adjudicatory provisions of the Geneva Conventions could therefore be avoided together with the substantive protections. #The Geneva and Hague Conventions were “obsolete” and ill-suited to the sort of ideologically driven warfare in which the Nazis were engaged on the Eastern Front, though they might have limited application with respect to the Western Allies. #Application of the Geneva Conventions was not in the enlightened self-interest of Germany because its enemies would not reciprocate such conduct by treating German prisoners in a humane fashion. #Construction of international law should be driven in the first instance by a clear understanding of the national interest as determined by the executive. To this end niggling, hypertechnical interpretations of the Conventions that disregarded the plain text, international practice and even Germany’s prior practice in order to justify their nonapplication were entirely appropriate. #In any event, the rules of international law were subordinated to the military interests of the German state and to the law as determined and stated by the German Führer. Compared to what is known about Yoo's legal advice Scott Horton, historian Heinrich August Winkler, Sandy Levinson, David Abraham and Christopher Kutz see similarities with the writings of Carl Schmitt. According to legal experts Scott Horton, David Abraham, Ahmad Chehab the concept of the "unitary executive," which lies at the heart of contoversies -i.e. NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Signing statement (United States), unlawful enemy combatant- seems to be based upon his state of exception.Unitary executive and Schmitt *Lessons from Carl Schmitt: Political Theology, Executive Power and the "Impact of Political Events" University of Chicago Press, 2005 *Neocons’ Nazi Hero - How Carl Schmitt Spawned Fascist America By ARTHUR VERSLUIS, Counterpunch, August 10, 2006 *THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE AND THE JURISPRUDENCE OF CARL SCHMITT: THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" Author: Ahmad Chehab Research Sponsor: Dr. Brad Roth Department: Political Science Institution: Wayne State University Official Position of the Bush Administration Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that: :"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."''We don't torture *The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far FactCheck, December 19 2005 *The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it Naomi Klein, The Guardian, December 10 2005 *Fun Bits About American Torture In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well? By Mark Morford, SF Gate, December 16 2005 The administration adopted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to address the multitude of incidents of detainee abuse. However, in his signing statement, Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3 2006 Public and International Reaction Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16 2006 Several legal analysts — such as Elizabeth Holtzman, Marjorie Cohn, and Human Rights First — have advocated that writing the so-called "torture memos," not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimesDraft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17 2003 under the command responsibility.The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic StaffAccountability *Fmr. NY Congresswoman Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Democracy Now, June 30 2005 *The Gonzales Indictment By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 19 2005 *The Quaint Mr. Gonzales By Marjorie Cohn, La Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper, November 19 2004 *The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11 2006 *Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Human Rights First *Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture? By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, Salt Lake Tribune, March 4 2006 *Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail of Torture This view was confirmed when the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, the Third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners) applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.A Supreme Rebuke Bush Loses Guantanamo Case Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- ''CounterPunch, June 30 2006 А report by Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) stated that the aforementioned ten techniques constitute torture. Their press release said: The report concludes that each of the ten tactics is likely to violate U.S. laws, including the War Crimes Act, the U.S. Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. According to HRF, PFH and Stephen Soldz et al. medical and psychological literature shows that torture may have "profound long-term negative effects upon individuals, including psychosis, depression, suicidal ideation and/or post-traumatic stress disorder." They also cite the Office of the Inspector General report which concluded that SERE-type interrogation techniques constitute "physical or mental torture and coercion under the Geneva conventions." Also, according to the New York Times: Experts advising the Bush administration on new interrogation rules warn that harsh techniques used since 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable. The Washington Post described the report by the Intelligence Science Board: There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods By Josh White, Washington Post January 16 2007 In an interview with AP on February 14, 2008 Paul Rester, chief military interrogator at Guantanamo Bay and director of the Joint Intelligence Group, said most of the information gathered from detainees came from non-coercive questioning and "rapport building," not harsh interrogation methods.Chief Guantanamo interrogator says most info not forced from detainees Eric Firkel, JURIST, February 17, 2008 On May 19 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the report, violates international law. It also calls for cessation of the US-termed "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as the UN sees these methods as a form of torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be discontinued. Reviewing the book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer, The New York Times reported that: Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes ..... and that the techniques applied to Abu Zubaydah were “categorically” torture,.... Destruction of evidence In December 2007 it became known that the CIA had destroyed videotapes depicting prisoners being interrogated. This was allegedly done to protect the agents' identities from being disclosed. The New York Times reported that according to "some insiders" an inquiry into the C.I.A.’s secret detention program which analysed these techniques "might end with criminal charges for abusive interrogations."Tapes by C.I.A. Lived and Died to Save Image By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, December 30 2007 Marty Lederman, Glenn Greenwald, and other commentators suggested these tapes might have revealed serious violations of US and international law, i.e. evidence of torture.Possible obstruction of Justice *Impeccable Timing Marty Lederman *Missing the Forest for a Single, Immaterial Tree Marty Lederman *"Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern Glenn Greenwald, December 7 2007 In an Op-ed for the New York Times Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission stated: As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton *Stonewalled by the C.I.A. by THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON, New York Times, January 2 2008 *9/11 Commission: Our investigation was "obstructed" by Glenn Greenwald, January 2 2008 Responding to the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed out the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous “Night and Fog Decree.” Jordan Paust concurred by responding to Mukasey's refusal to investigate and/or prosecute anyone that relied on these legal opinions it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense!Just Following Orders? DOJ Opinions and War Crimes Liability Jordan Paust, JURIST, February 18, 2008 U.S. State Department position on the use of similar treatment by other nations Human Rights Watch (HRW) observed that numerous countries engage in activities that are similar to the ones allegedly used by the C.I.A.:Descriptions of Techniques Allegedly Authorized by the CIA by Human Rights Watch, November 21, 2005 #Forced standing #Sleep deprivation #Exposure to cold #Waterboarding The organisation also reported that: The U.S. State Department has condemned as torture or other inhuman treatment many of the techniques that have allegedly been used by the CIA in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at secret detention sites in other countries. Legality International Law *The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights It also states that: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. *In 1994, the United States filed a declaration qualifying its compliance with the Convention against Torture. According to the UN Secretary General, the Government of the United States of America said, "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorises legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States." Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment New York, 10 December 1984 (backup), footnote 11 *Countries that are signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights agreed that Article 5 prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." *Marty Lederman observes that: ::Even if some of these techniques are arguably short of legally defined "torture" in some cases, surely they are the sort of "cruel treatment" that the Geneva Conventions prohibit -- particularly when one recalls that those treaties were written largely with Germany's practices in mind. (The techniques might also, at least in many cases, violate the federal assault law and the McCain Amendment, as well.) And therefore the techniques are plainly unlawful -- and a President committed to faithful execution of the law would not authorise their use by the CIA -- whether or not they are subject to the criminal sanctions reserved for "torture" as such. US Law *In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalesletter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales., more than 100 U.S. professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code. * Senior law enforcement agents with the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) told MSNBC.com in 2006 that they complained inside the Defence Department in 2002 that the "interrogation" tactics used by a separate team of intelligence investigators were unproductive, not likely to produce reliable information, and probably illegal. Unable to get satisfaction from the Army commanders running the detainee camp, they took their concerns to David Brant, director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), who alerted Navy General Counsel Alberto J. Mora. . General Counsel Mora and Navy Judge Advocate General Michael Lohr believed the detainee treatment to be unlawful, and campaigned among other top lawyers and officials in the Defence Department to investigate, and to provide clear standards prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics. In response, on January 15 2003, Donald Rumsfeld suspended the approved interrogation tactics at Guantánamo until a working group, headed by General Counsel of the Air Force Mary Walker, could produce a set of guidelines. The working group based its new guidelines on a legal memo from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel written by John Yoo and signed by Jay S. Bybee, which would become known as the "Torture Memo". General Counsel Mora led a faction of the Working Group in arguing against these standards, and argued the issues with Yoo in person. The working group's final report, was signed and delivered to Guantánamo without the knowledge of Mora and the others who had opposed its content. Nonetheless, Mora maintained that detainee treatment complied with the law since the January 15 2003 suspension of previously approved interrogation tactics. * Elizabeth de la Vega wrote that under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2340, there is no confusion as to whether these techniques constitute torture. This argument - that a person cannot know whether his conduct falls within the definition of torture unless it is expressly proscribed by Section 2340 - is precisely the one we've heard from Michael Mukasey with regard to waterboarding. Ban on Interrogation Techniques On February 13, 2008 the US Senate, in a 51 to 45 vote, approved a bill limiting the number of techniques allowed to only "those interrogation techniques explicitly authorized by the 2006 Army Field Manual."Senate bannes interrogation techniques *Senator McCain Is Against Torture -- But Votes Against the Bill That Would Prevent It Marty Lederman, Balkinization, February 13, 2008 Senate backs intelligence bill restricting CIA interrogation tactics Mike Rosen-Molina, JURIST, February 13, 2008 The Washington Post stated: The measure would effectively ban the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. *Senate Passes Ban On Waterboarding, Other Techniques By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, February 14, 2008 President Bush has said in a BBC interview he would veto the such billBush to veto intelligence bill restricting CIA interrogation tactics Jaime Jansen, Jurist, February 15, 2008 after previously signing an executive order that allows "enhanced interrogation techniques" and may exempt the CIA from Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Request for Special Counsel Probe of Harsh Interrogation Tactics On June 8 2008, fifty-six House Democrats asked for an independent investigation, raising the possibility that authorising these techniques may constitute a crime by Bush administration officials. The congressmen involved in calling for such an investigation included John Conyers, Jan Schakowsky, and Jerrold Nadler. Lawmakers Urge Special Counsel Probe of Harsh Interrogation Tactics by: Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, June 08, 2008 The letter was addressed to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey observing that: "... information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law." The letter continues to state: "Because these apparent 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were used under cover of Justice Department legal opinions, the need for an outside special prosecutor is obvious." According to the Washington Post the request was denied because Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey felt that: officials acted in "good faith" when they sought legal opinions, and that the lawyers who provided them used their best judgment.Mukasey Rejects Inquiry Carrie Johnson, Washington Post, July 11, 2008 The article also reported that: He warned that criminalizing the process could cause policymakers to second-guess themselves and "harm our national security well into the future." See also *2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction *Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse *Bagram torture and prisoner abuse *Behavioral Science Consultation Teams *Command responsibility *Doublespeak *Human rights abuse *Iraq prison abuse scandal *Jus in bello *Newspeak *Torture and the United States *UN Convention Against Torture *War crimes External links Articles * Brian Ross & Richard Esposito, ABC News, November 18 2005, "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described" Books * Stephen Grey, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (2007) * Alfred W. McCoy, A Question Of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (2006) * U.S. Government, Coercive Interrogation: U.S. Views on Torture 1963-2003 References Category:George W. Bush administration controversies 1899 and 1907 Category:Human rights abuses Category:International criminal law Category:Interrogation techniques Category:Physical torture techniques Category:Psychological torture techniques Category:Torture Category:War crimes